IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 10 May 2019 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551AC120075 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2019 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tm1OIvTmvo8k for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2019 06:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EC91120020 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2019 06:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652AD4A; Fri, 10 May 2019 15:50:51 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1557496248; bh=gaiaEspzaYpnmNhUMvb I03HMme1Dg7zu+GlAHmBQqnM=; b=B/hSzqBL4cwBBpnUaaVnjmV4bFfJxAOG5dk va3NhlBguqKCw1JH8IxJ/iM5eYmPVBhgwC/Ghg6kvTfCLZT5ifX3gg7lIj2uv5UP k94JMA8lqjGol4BBlAQesYf5yaXh3oXNjdlNAgb7g9HvYHjbrgcNrq2xzepF853w da8mLHas=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id feAwVupoakF1; Fri, 10 May 2019 15:50:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:ed51:6f3c:85f7:b15e] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:ed51:6f3c:85f7:b15e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2904049; Fri, 10 May 2019 15:50:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <C3D7C853-8CB1-4D50-A9D1-5F1BD438AA46@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B72F10D4-600D-4A41-8568-17A52182A841"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:50:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau3F+Z94aC1fAohZDz81z=Kg4u1TZGiuMH_L4yVUCH1sMg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905091054560.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1hOfjp-0000IdC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <924a4e34-e5f9-9872-bd4a-c0f68fd5387f@gmail.com> <m1hP1uA-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <12F17008-16C5-4E58-89DB-BC7D01341CD7@lists.zabbadoz.net> <f1210218-9a51-805f-df31-d96dc9381c91@foobar.org> <F5BC870A-0853-43A3-A493-DC7DF8701B50@lists.zabbadoz.net> <C5A98D65-ABC9-4728-82C5-CF81F8FE53D8@steffann.nl> <CAN-Dau3F+Z94aC1fAohZDz81z=Kg4u1TZGiuMH_L4yVUCH1sMg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_Bki87M5DGlkPgyeS-6xUsrvoWo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 13:50:57 -0000

Hi David,

> I have to agree that a "hard off" for IPv4, especially global scope unicast IPv4 is not necessary, it is not the problem. If a dual-stack host doesn't get an IPv4 DHCPOFFER, it won't do global scope unicast IPv4. The primary problem described in the problem statement is RFC 3927 and futile IPv4 service discovery using Link-Local IPv4 addresses. I am suggesting we change the flag to be a "hard off" only for RFC 3927, and then its a heuristic hint to fairly quickly stop, or at least severely limit, periodic IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS, or a "soft off" for global scope unicast IPv4.
> 
> Furthermore, at least in the near-term, I don't believe IPv6-Only networks are going to be very common. Therefore, I don't think delaying the initial IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS until the IPv6 RAs can be analyzed is a good tactic.  While I think it should be permitted, I don't think it should be encouraged, at least until IPv6-Only networks become the dominant solution and dual-stack or IPv4-Only networks are rare. Which is by no means the case today. Today, delaying initial IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS is bad advice.

That sounds like a good way forward.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email